No abstract

Objective:To delineate the full phenotypic spectrum, discriminative features, piloting longitudinal progression data, and sample size calculations of RFC1-repeat expansions, recently identified as causing cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy, vestibular areflexia syndrome (CANVAS).Methods:Multimodal RFC1 repeat screening (PCR, southern blot, whole-exome/genome (WES/WGS)-based approaches) combined with cross-sectional and longitudinal deep-phenotyping in (i) cross-European cohort A (70 families) with ≥2 features of CANVAS and/or ataxia-with-chronic-cough (ACC); and (ii) Turkish cohort B (105 families) with unselected late-onset ataxia.Results:Prevalence of RFC1-disease was 67% in cohort A, 14% in unselected cohort B, 68% in clinical CANVAS, and 100% in ACC. RFC1-disease was also identified in Western and Eastern Asians, and even by WES. Visual compensation, sensory symptoms, and cough were strong positive discriminative predictors (>90%) against RFC1-negative patients. The phenotype across 70 RFC1-positive patients was mostly multisystemic (69%), including dysautonomia (62%) and bradykinesia (28%) (=overlap with cerebellar-type multiple system atrophy [MSA-C]), postural instability (49%), slow vertical saccades (17%), and chorea and/or dystonia (11%). Ataxia progression was ∼1.3 SARA points/year (32 cross-sectional, 17 longitudinal assessments, follow-up ≤9 years [mean 3.1]), but also included early falls, variable non-linear phases of MSA-C-like progression (SARA 2.5-5.5/year), and premature death. Treatment trials require 330 (1-year-trial) and 132 (2-year-trial) patients in total to detect 50% reduced progression.Conclusions:RFC1-disease is frequent and occurs across continents, with CANVAS and ACC as highly diagnostic phenotypes, yet as variable, overlapping clusters along a continuous multisystemic disease spectrum, including MSA-C-overlap. Our natural history data help to inform future RFC1-treatment trials.Classification of Evidence:This study provides Class II evidence that RFC1-repeat expansions are associated with CANVAS and ACC.

The brain integrates sensory input from the otolith organs, the semicircular canals, and the somatosensory and visual systems to determine self-orientation relative to gravity. Only the otoliths directly sense the gravito-inertial force vector and therefore provide the major input for perceiving static head-roll relative to gravity, as measured by the subjective visual vertical (SVV). Intraindividual SVV variability increases with head roll, which suggests that the effectiveness of the otolith signal is roll-angle dependent. We asked whether SVV variability reflects the spatial distribution of the otolithic sensors and the otolith-derived acceleration estimate. Subjects were placed in different roll orientations (0-360 degrees, 15 degrees steps) and asked to align an arrow with perceived vertical. Variability was minimal in upright, increased with head-roll peaking around 120-135 degrees, and decreased to intermediate values at 180 degrees. Otolith-dependent variability was modeled by taking into consideration the nonuniform distribution of the otolith afferents and their nonlinear firing rate. The otolith-derived estimate was combined with an internal bias shifting the estimated gravity-vector toward the body-longitudinal. Assuming an efficient otolith estimator at all roll angles, peak variability of the model matched our data; however, modeled variability in upside-down and upright positions was very similar, which is at odds with our findings. By decreasing the effectiveness of the otolith estimator with increasing roll, simulated variability matched our experimental findings better. We suggest that modulations of SVV precision in the roll plane are related to the properties of the otolith sensors and to central computational mechanisms that are not optimally tuned for roll-angles distant from upright.

Roughly 9% of cerebrovascular events are missed at initial ED presentation. Risk of misdiagnosis is much greater when presenting neurologic complaints are mild, nonspecific, or transient (range 24%-60%). This difference suggests that many misdiagnoses relate to symptom-specific factors. Future research should emphasize studying causes and designing error-reduction strategies in symptom-specific subgroups at greatest risk of misdiagnosis.

StatisticsSummary/conclusions: SRC is a traumatic brain injury that is defined as a complex pathophysiological process affecting the brain, induced by biomechanical forces with several common features that help defining its nature. Limitations identified include that current criteria for diagnosing SRC are clinically oriented, and there is no gold/standard to assess their diagnostic properties. A future, more valid definition of SRC would better identify concussed players by demonstrating high predictive positive/negative values. Currently, the use of helmet-based systems to study the biomechanics of SRC is limited to few collision sports. New approaches need to be developed to provide objective markers for SRC. 3 Bullet statements What is already known?• Over the past 50 years, various definitions of sports-related concussion (SRC) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have been proposed by individual authors, different research groups and international bodies.• Currently, there is no gold or reference standard for SRC diagnosis, and the diagnostic properties of the various definitions have not been studied.• The different definitions of SRC do not concur with one another, and this variability has likely caused information or diagnostic misclassification bias in past studies on the management and prognosis of SRC. What are the new findings?• Amongst currently available consensus-based definitions of SRC, the consensus statement from the CISG can be considered the opinion leader based on citation statistics.• These consensus-based definitions, however, showed different levels of detail and weighted distinct domains differently. Limitations even in those definitions that provided additional clarifying statements were demonstrated, including the overlap / distinction between SRC and mTBI.• Angular and linear head accelerations linked to clinically confirmed SRC demonstrated considerable individual variation.